Bone metastases and use of bone protective agents (BPA) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): A contemporary national real-world analysis.

490 Background: Bone Metastases (BM) occur in approximately 30% of mRCC patients (pts) with evidence suggesting that they portend a worse prognosis. Systemic therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are felt to be active in these pts, with radiation therapy (RT) often employed for BM-directed treatment. The evidence for and use of BPAs, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, is limited in the current ICI era. We investigated the outcomes of mRCC pts with BM and use of BPA in a contemporary real-world cohort. Methods: We analyzed data collected from the prospectively maintained, multi-institutional Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis). Patients with clear cell mRCC treated between January 2011-June 2023 were included. Outcomes were compared between BM+ and BM- pts using Cox proportional hazards models. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to assess time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) adjusted by IMDC criteria. Results: Of 2,307 patients with clear cell mRCC, 893 (39%) had BM+, of whom 691 (77%) underwent RT, and 139 (16%) received a BPA. Median follow-up was longer for BM- patients (34.6 vs 29.1 mos). Significant differences were noted in Karnofsky performance status (> 80%: 84% vs 78%), IMDC risk group (intermediate/poor: 76% versus 82%) use of RT (35% vs 78%), and use of BPAs (2% vs 16%) between BM- vs BM+ pts (all p < 0.05). In our cohort, first-line treatment in BM+ pts was monotherapy TKI (67%), doublet ICI (20%), and combination TKI+ICI (13%). Median TTF was similar in BM- vs BM+ pts: 9.6 vs 8.6 mos (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.91-1.02). However, median OS was higher in BM- vs BM+ pts: 57.6 vs 35.8 mos (HR 0.67; 0.58-0.76; p<0.0001); this was consistent irrespective of type of systemic therapy. In BM+ pts, those who did not receive BPAs had a lower TTF (7.9 vs 13.4 mos) and OS (34.0 vs 46.0 mos); however, these were not statistically different when adjusted by IMDC criteria (TTF HR 1.2; 0.95-1.51 and OS HR 1.12; 0.85-1.46). There was no significant difference in TTF (HR 0.89; 0.72-1.10) or OS (HR 0.94; 0.73-1.22) in BM+ pts selected to receive RT. Conclusions: BM remain a poor prognostic factor in mRCC in this contemporary cohort of patients. While BPA use was limited, we observed no improvement in TTF or OS in BM+ pts with their use. These data warrant further investigation of BPA in mRCC including assessment of SREs and potential complications.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.490
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Bone health and treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.05
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Bone metastases and use of bone protective agents (BPA) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): A contemporary national real-world analysis.

Dominick Bossé, Jeffrey Graham, Naveen S. Basappa, Rodney H. Breau et al.
1 citations
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Bone health and treatments
1.05
article

Bone metastases and use of bone protective agents (BPA) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): A contemporary national real-world analysis.

Dominick Bossé, Jeffrey Graham, Naveen S. Basappa, Rodney H. Breau, Aly‐Khan A. Lalani, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Eric Winquist, Frédéric Pouliot, Bimal Bhindi, Georg A. Bjarnason, Sunita Ghosh, Braden Millan, Lori Wood, Vincent Castonguay, Christian Kollmannsberger, Antonio Finelli, Rahul Bansal
article en
1 citations

Abstract

490 Background: Bone Metastases (BM) occur in approximately 30% of mRCC patients (pts) with evidence suggesting that they portend a worse prognosis. Systemic therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are felt to be active in these pts, with radiation therapy (RT) often employed for BM-directed treatment. The evidence for and use of BPAs, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, is limited in the current ICI era. We investigated the outcomes of mRCC pts with BM and use of BPA in a contemporary real-world cohort. Methods: We analyzed data collected from the prospectively maintained, multi-institutional Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis). Patients with clear cell mRCC treated between January 2011-June 2023 were included. Outcomes were compared between BM+ and BM- pts using Cox proportional hazards models. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to assess time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) adjusted by IMDC criteria. Results: Of 2,307 patients with clear cell mRCC, 893 (39%) had BM+, of whom 691 (77%) underwent RT, and 139 (16%) received a BPA. Median follow-up was longer for BM- patients (34.6 vs 29.1 mos). Significant differences were noted in Karnofsky performance status (> 80%: 84% vs 78%), IMDC risk group (intermediate/poor: 76% versus 82%) use of RT (35% vs 78%), and use of BPAs (2% vs 16%) between BM- vs BM+ pts (all p < 0.05). In our cohort, first-line treatment in BM+ pts was monotherapy TKI (67%), doublet ICI (20%), and combination TKI+ICI (13%). Median TTF was similar in BM- vs BM+ pts: 9.6 vs 8.6 mos (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.91-1.02). However, median OS was higher in BM- vs BM+ pts: 57.6 vs 35.8 mos (HR 0.67; 0.58-0.76; p<0.0001); this was consistent irrespective of type of systemic therapy. In BM+ pts, those who did not receive BPAs had a lower TTF (7.9 vs 13.4 mos) and OS (34.0 vs 46.0 mos); however, these were not statistically different when adjusted by IMDC criteria (TTF HR 1.2; 0.95-1.51 and OS HR 1.12; 0.85-1.46). There was no significant difference in TTF (HR 0.89; 0.72-1.10) or OS (HR 0.94; 0.73-1.22) in BM+ pts selected to receive RT. Conclusions: BM remain a poor prognostic factor in mRCC in this contemporary cohort of patients. While BPA use was limited, we observed no improvement in TTF or OS in BM+ pts with their use. These data warrant further investigation of BPA in mRCC including assessment of SREs and potential complications.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(5_suppl)
Western University (CA), BC Cancer Agency (CA), Dalhousie University (CA), National Institutes of Health (US), Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA), University of Ottawa (CA), University of Alberta (CA), University of Calgary (CA), University of Toronto (CA), Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre (CA), Ottawa Hospital (CA), London Health Sciences Centre (CA), CancerCare Manitoba (CA), Hôtel-Dieu de Québec (CA), National Cancer Institute (US), Université Laval (CA), University of Manitoba (CA), St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (CA), McMaster University (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 25%
Bone health and treatments
1.05
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.